Skip to main content

Full text of "Shall the door be shut?"

See other formats







Shall the Door 

V' . 

Be Shut? 


• 

1 


"To whom was the pledge of the Balfour Declaration made? 
This pledge of a home of refuge, of an asylum, was not 
made to the Jews in Palestine, but to the Jews outside Pales- 
tine, to that vast, unhappy mass of scattered, persecuted, 
wandering Jews whose intense, unchanging, unconquerable 
desire has been for a National Home . . ." 

Winston Churchill 



SHALL THE DOOR BE SHUT? 



The Palestine Resolution 
of the Congress of the United States 

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Repre- 
sentatives of the United States of America in Congress 
assembled, that the United States of America favors 
the establishment in Palestine of a national home for 
the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that 
nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil 
and religious rights of Christian and all other non- 
Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy 
places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine 
shall be adequately protected. 

Adopted unanimously by both Houses on June 30, 1922. 
Signed by President Harding on September 21, 1922, 



The BRITISH white paper of May 17, 1939 will close Palestine 
to all Jewish immigration in the spring of this year.* At a time 
when millions of European Jews have been massacred by the 
Nazis, the chief and almost the only door to escape will be slammed in 
the face of those hundreds of thousands who still survive and whom 
the Nazis have starved, impoverished, uprooted from home and 
occupation. 

The Palestine White Paper followed by a few months the Munich 
surrender. It reflected the same crisis in world statesmanship and inter- 
national morality. As in Europe, so in Palestine, principle was sacrificed 
to expediency. After a period of Axis-fed agitation and terrorism, during 
which the followers of the Mufti of Jerusalem who is now in Berlin, 
attacked and murdered not only Jews but large numbers of Arabs who 
refused to recognize the Mufti's leadership, Britain yielded. The League 
of Nations Mandate by virtue of which she governs Palestine had made 
her responsible "for placing the country under such political, adminis- 
trative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the 
Jewish National Home" and had obligated her specifically to facilitate 
Jewish immigration. By abandoning these obligations to the Jewish 
National Home, Britain hoped to secure the support of the Arab world 
in the great struggle that was clearly about to begin. 

That the benefits to be derived from the pursuit of such a policy of 
"administrative convenience" would be illusory, was pointed out at the 
time the White Paper was issued by Mr. Winston Churchill in a re- 

* The only immigrants to be admitted will be the holders of some 30,000 immigration 
certificates remaining from the 75,000 quota alloted by the White Paper for the five- 
year period ending March 31, 1944; wartime transportation difficulties have made it 
impossible for these to be used within the time limit set by the White Paper. 



maskable speech reproduced in this pamphlet. The course of events 
during the war has made it clear that appeasement failed in the Arab 
world as it failed elsewhere. In Iraq in 1941 there was a pro-Axis 
revolt. Egypt moved no finger to aid the Allies in the defense of Egyp- 
tian soil, and as long as the German machine was in the ascendant, the 
Arabs of Palestine and Syria seethed with pro- Axis sentiment. 

The policy of the White Paper was laid down nearly five years 
ago. Today the entire world is influx, and the future status and 
organization of the Mediterranean area, as of all central and eastern 
Europe, is in the balance. It might thus have been assumed that the 
problem of Palestine, too, would be subject to reconsideration in the 
light of the new situation. No hint of this has been forthcoming on 
the part of the British Government. On the contrary, many elements in 
k are ardent in their insistence that the White Paper, apparently alone 
of the adjustments of the Chamberlain era, must remain sacrosanct. 

The White Paper consistently attempts to reconcile its proposals 
with the terms of the Mandate for Palestine: its renunciation of the 
Mandate is made to appear a logical conclusion springing from the 
terms of the Mandate itself. Actually, the White Paper deliberately 
ignores what Mr. Churchill describes as Britain's paramount pledge and 
obligation under the Mandate — the development of the Jewish National 
Home. The White Paper is not and cannot be the last word on the future 
of Palestine or of the Jewish people, linked to Palestine by the un- 
breakable bonds of history, tradition, and international recognition. It 
remains for the conscience of the democratic peoples, for an enlightened 
statesmanship in a world which has been through the crucible of a 
terrible war, fearlessly to face a problem which has challenged man- 
kind through two thousand years of history. The problem is that of the 
national homelessness of the Jewish people, a minority everywhere 
with no land which it may call its own and to which it may turn for 
escape from the recurrent persecution to which it is subject. In a wise 
and courageous solution of this problem, the White Paper can have 
no part. 



THE WHITE PAPER: A Summary 



The Palestine White Paper of May 1939 is divided into three 
sections dealing respectively with Constitution, Immigration and Land. 

(1) Constitution: The White Paper refers to the statement in 
July 1937 of the Palestine Royal Commission that there is nothing in 
the Balfour Declaration to prohibit the ultimate establishment of a 
Jewish state. The White Paper declares unequivocally, however, that 
it is not part of the policy of His Majesty's Government, that Palestine 
should become a Jewish state. The obligation of His Majesty's Gov- 
ernment is limited to the further development of the existing Jewish 
community with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in 
order that it may become a center in which the Jewish people, as a 
whole, may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a 
pride. The increase in the Jewish population of Palestine to some 
450,000 since 1922, or approaching one third of the entire population 
of the country, is evidence that His Majesty's Government have been 
carrying out this obligation. Nor has the Jewish community failed to 
take advantage of the opportunities given to it. "The growth of the 
Jewish National Home and its achievements in many fields are a re- 
markable constructive effort which must command the admiration of 
the world and must be in particular a source of pride to the Jewish 
people." 

On the other hand, it is the duty of His Majesty's Government to 
secure the development of self-government and they desire to see estab- 
lished ultimately an independent Palestine state in which Arabs and 
Jews would share authority in Government in such a way that the 
essential interests of each are secured. More specifically it is declared 
that the objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment 
within ten years (i. e. from May, 1939) of an independent Palestine 
state. During the preceding transitional period Palestinians will be 
given an increasing part in the government of the country and Arab 



and Jewish representatives will be invited to serve as heads of depart- 
ments approximately in proportion to their respective populations. 
(The proportion envisaged, as appears later in the document, is one 
third Jews and two thirds Arabs.) Provision is to be made for the 
security of, and freedom of access to, the Holy Places, and for British 
strategic needs in the light of circumstances then existing. 

His Majesty's Government will do everything in their power to 
create conditions which will enable the independent Palestine state 
to come into being within ten years, but if at the end of that period it 
appears to His Majesty's Government that circumstances require post- 
ponement of the establishment of an independent state it will consult 
with the representatives of the people of Palestine, the Council of the 
League of Nations and neighboring Arab states before deciding any 
such postponement. Should His Majesty's Government come to the 
conclusion that postponement is unavoidable, it will invite the co- 
operation of those parties in framing plans for the future with a view 
to achieving the desired objective at the earliest possible date. 

(2) Immigration: The White Paper restates the principle of 
the 1922 (Churchill) White Paper that for the fulfillment of the 
policy of establishing a Jewish National Home "it is necessary that the 
Jewish population should be able to increase its numbers by immigra- 
tion. This immigration cannot be so great in volume as to exceed 
whatever may be the economic capacity of the country at the time to 
absorb new arrivals." Until recently the economic absorptive capacity 
of the country had been treated as the sole limiting factor on Jewish 
immigration. It is now affirmed, however, that the political position 
in the country, including such matters as the fear of indefinite Jewish 
immigration on the part of the Arab population, is a factor which should 
not be ignored in framing an immigration policy. ''The alternatives 
before His Majesty's Government are either to seek to expand the 
Jewish National Home indefinitely by immigration against the strongly 
expressed will of the Arab people of the country, or to permit further 
expansion of the Jewish National Home by immigration only if the 



Arabs are prepared to acquiesce in it." The former policy means rule 
by force and His Majesty's Government have decided that the time has 
come to adopt in principle the second of the alternatives offered above. 
It is accordingly proposed that ( 1 ) for the five year period from the 
beginning of April 1939, 75,000 immigrants shall, subject to the 
criterion of the economic absorptive capacity, be admitted, (2) after 
the period of five years no further Jewish immigration will be per- 
mitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are prepared to acquiesce in it. 

(3) Land: In terms of Article IV of the Mandate the Adminis- 
tration of Palestine is required "while ensuring that the rights and 
position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced," to 
encourage "close settlement by Jews on the land." The natural growth 
of the Arab population and the steady sale in recent years of Arab 
lands to Jews have led to the conclusion that all transfers of land must 
be restricted if Arab cultivators are to maintain their standard of living 
and a considerable landless Arab population is not to be created. It is 
proposed accordingly to give the High Commissioner general powers 
to prohibit and regulate transfers of land. (Regulations in pursuance 
of this provision were issued subsequently; according to these Jews are 
to be allowed rights of free purchase in only 2.6% — 260 square miles 
— of the total area of Palestine. A total prohibition on transfer of land 
to Jews was imposed in about two thirds of the country; in the re- 
maining area transfer is permissible only under severe restrictions and 
subject to the consent of the High Commissioner.) 

The White Paper concludes with the statement that "in framing 
these proposals His Majesty's Government has sincerely endeavoured 
to act in strict accordance with its obligations under the Mandate to 
both the Arabs and the Jews." 



THE BREACH OF A SOLEMN OBLIGATION 

WINSTON CHURCHILL 

A SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS DURING 
THE DEBATE ON THE WHITE PAPER, MAY 22, 1939 



SAY quite frankly that I find this is a melancholy occasion. Like my right 
honourable Friend, the Member for Sparkbrook*, I feel bound to vote 
against the proposals of His Majesty's Government. As one intimately 
and responsibly concerned in the earlier stages of our Palestine policy, I 
could not stand by and see solemn engagements into which Britain has 
entered before the world set aside for reasons of administrative con- 
venience or — and it will be a vain hope — for the sake of a quiet life. 
Like my right honourable Friend, I should feel personally embarrassed 
in the most acute manner if I lent myself, by silence or inaction, to what 
I must regard as an act of repudiation. 

It is often supposed that the Balfour Declaration was an ill-considered, 
sentimental act largely concerned with the right honourable Member for 
Carnarvon Boroughs 2 for which the Conservative party had no real 
responsibility, and that, as the Secretary of State said yesterday, it 
was a thing done in the tumult of the War. But hardly any step 
was taken with greater deliberation and responsibility. I was glad to 
hear the account which my right honourable Friend, the Member for 
Sparkbrook gave, derived from the days when he was working in the 
Secretariat of the War Cabinet, of the care and pains with which the 
whole field was explored at that time. Not only did the War Cabinet 
of those days take the decision but all Cabinets of every party after the 
War, after examining it in the varying circumstances which have arisen, 
have endorsed the decision and taken the fullest responsibility for it. 

When I went to the Colonial Office it was in this spirit that I wrote this 
dispatch, under the authority of the Cabinet, which is quoted so much in 
the White Paper now before us. Great use is made of this dispatch of 

1 Leopold Amery 

1 David Lloyd George 



1922 in the White Paper. It is sought to found the argument of the 
White Paper largely upon it. I stand by every word in those lengthy 
quotations which have been made from what I wrote. I would not alter 
a sentence after the sixteen years that have passed, but I must say I 
think it rather misleading to quote so extensively from one part of the 
dispatch without indicating what was its main purpose. The particular 
paragraph quoted would do little to cool down the ardour of the Zionist 
and little to reassure the apprehensions of the Arabs. The main purpose 
of the dispatch was clear. This is what I said in paragraph (1) : 

> 
"His Majesty's Government have no intention of repudiating the 

obligations into which they have entered towards the Jewish people." 

I then proceeded to say that the Government would refuse to discuss 
the future of Palestine on any basis other than the basis of the Balfour 
Declaration. Moreover, the whole tenor of the dispatch was to make it 
clear that the establishment of self-governing institutions in Palestine was 
subordinated to the paramount pledge and obligation of establishing a 
Jewish National Home in Palestine. 

Last night the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs used a 
surprising argument. He suggested that the obligation to introduce self- 
governing institutions into Palestine ranked equally with the obligation 
to establish a Jewish National Home. In this very dispatch of mine, which 
represented the views of the entire Government of the day, the greatest 
pains were taken to make it clear that the paramount duty was the estab- 
lishment of a National Home. It was said on page six: 

"The position is that His Majesty's Government are bound by a 
pledge which is antecedent to the Covenant of the League of Nations, 
and they cannot allow a constitutional position to develop in a country 
for which they have accepted responsibility to the principal Allied 
Powers which may make it impracticable to carry into effect a solemn 
undertaking given by themselves and their Allies." 

Now I come to the gravamen of the case. I regret very much that 
the pledge of the Balfour Declaration, endorsed as it has been by successive 
Governments, and the conditions under which we obtained the Mandate, 
have both been violated by the Government's proposals. There is much 
in this White Paper which is alien to the spirit of the Balfour Declara- 

9 



tion, but I will not trouble about that. I select the one point upon which 
there is plainly a breach and repudiation of the Balfour Declaration — the 
provision that Jewish immigration can be stopped in five years' time by 
the decision of an Arab majority. That is a plain breach of a solemn 
obligation. I am astonished that my right honourable Friend the Prime 
Minister, of all others, and at this moment above all others, should have 
lent himself to this new and sudden default. 

Britain Has No Right to Close the Door of Palestine 

To whom was the pledge of the Balfour Declaration made? It was 
not made to the Jews of Palestine, it was not made to those who were 
actually living in Palestine. It was made to world Jewry and in particular 
to the Zionist associations. It was in consequence of and on the basis of 
this pledge that we received important help in the War, and that after 
the War we received from the Allied and Associated Powers the Mandate 
for Palestine. This pledge of a home of refuge, of an asylum, was not 
made to the Jews in Palestine but to the Jews outside Palestine, to that 
vast, unhappy mass of scattered, persecuted, wandering Jews whose intense, 
unchanging, unconquerable desire has been for a National Home. That 
is the pledge which was given, and that is the pledge which we are now 
asked to break. 

It is said specifically on page ten of the White Paper that Jewish 
immigration during the next five years will be at a rate which, if the 
economic absorptive capacity allows, will bring the population up to 
approximately one-third of the total population of the country. After 
that the Arab majority, twice as numerous as the Jews, will have control, 
and all further Jewish immigration will be subject to their acquiescence, 
which is only another way of saying that it will be on sufferance. What 
is that but the destruction of the Balfour Declaration? What is it but 
one-sided denunciation — what is called in the jargon of the present time 
a unilateral denunciation — of an engagement? 

There need be no dispute about this phrase "economic absorptive 
capacity." It represented the intentions of the Government and their 
desire to carry out the Palestinian Mandate in an efficient and in a 
prudent manner. As I am the author of the phrase, perhaps I may be 
allowed to state that economic absorptive capacity was never intended to 
rule without regard to any other consideration. It has always rested with 
the Mandatory Power to vary the influx of the Jews in accordance with 

10 



what was best for Palestine and for the sincere fulfillment — one must 
presuppose the sincere fulfillment — of our purpose in establishing a Jewish 
National Home there. It was never suggested at any time that the 
decision about the quota to be admitted should rest with the Jews or 
should rest with the Arabs. It rested, and could only rest at any time, 
with the Mandatory Power which was responsible for carrying out the 
high purpose of the then victorious Allies. The Mandatory Commission 
of the League of Nations, as was mentioned by the spokesman for the 
Opposition when he opened the Debate this afternoon, has recognized 
fully that the Mandatory Power was entitled to control the flow of im- 
migration, or even to suspend it in any emergency. What they are not 
entitled to do, at least not entitled to do without reproach — grave public 
and worldwide reproach, and I trust self-reproach as well — is to brin» 
the immigration to an end so far as they are concerned, to wash their 
hands of it, to close the door. That they have no right whatever to do . . . 
I cannot understand why this course has blen taken. I search around 
for the answer. The first question one would ask oneself is fore- 
shadowed in a reference made in the speech of my honourable Friend, 
and is this: Is our condition so parlous and our state so poor that we must, 
in our weakness, make this sacrifice of our declared purpose? Although 
I have been very anxious that we should strengthen our armaments and 
spread our alliances and so increase the force of our position, I must say 
that I have not taken such a low view of the strength of the British 
Empire or of the very many powerful countries who desire to walk in 
association with us; but if the Government, with their superior knowledge 
of the deficiencies in our armaments which have arisen during their 
stewardship, really feel that we are too weak to carry out our obligations 
and wish to file a petition in moral and physical bankruptcy, that is an 
argument which, however ignominious, should certainly weigh with the 
House in these dangerous times. But is it true? I do not believe it is 
true. I cannot believe that the task to which we set our hand twenty 
years ago in Palestine is beyond our strength, or that faithful perseverance 
will not, in the end, bring that task to a glorious success . . . 

We must ask ourselves another question, which arises out of this: 
Can we — and this is the question — strengthen ourselves by repudiation? 
Shall we relieve ourselves by this repudiation? I should have thought that 
the plan put forward by the Colonial Secretary in his White Paper, with 
its arid constitutional ideas and safety catches at every point, and with 



11 



vagueness overlaying it and through all of it, combines, so far as one can 
understand it at present, the disadvantages of all courses without the 
advantages of any. The triumphant Arabs have rejected it. They are 
not going to put up with it. The despairing Jews will resist it. What 
will the world think about it? What will our friends say? What will be 
the opinion of the United States of America? Shall we not lose more — 
and this is a question to be considered maturely — in the growing support 
and sympathy of the United States than we shall gain in local adminis- 
trative convenience, if gain at all indeed we do? . . . 

Britain's Need is for Fidelity and Firmness 

It is hoped to obtain five years of easement in Palestine by this pro- 
posal; surely the consequence will be entirely the opposite. A sense of 
moral weakness in the Mandatory Power, whose many years of vacillation 
and uncertainty have, as the right honourable gentleman admitted yes- 
terday, largely provoked the evils from which we suffer, will rouse all 
the violent elements in Palestine to the utmost degree. In order to avoid 
the reproach, the bitter reproach, of shutting out refugees during this 
time of brutal persecution, the quota may be raised, as we were told by 
the Secretary of State, and may be continued at an even higher level in 
the next five years. Thus, irritation will continue and the incentive to 
resist will be aggravated. What about these five years? Who shall say 
where we are going to be five years from now? Europe is more than 
two-thirds mobilized to-night. The ruinous race of armaments now carries 
whole populations into the military machine. That cannot possibly con- 
tinue for five years, nor for four, nor for three years. It may be that it 
will not continue beyond the present year. Long before those five years 
are past, either there will be a Britain which knows how to keep its word 
on the Balfour Declaration and is not afraid to do so, or, believe me, we 
shall find ourselves relieved of many oversea responsibilities other than 
those comprised within the Palestine Mandate. 

Some of us hold that our safety at this juncture resides in being bold 
and strong. We urge that the reputation for fidelity of execution, strict 
execution of public contracts, is a shield and buckler which the British 
Empire, however it may arm, cannot dispense with and cannot desire to 
dispense with. Never was the need for fidelity and firmness more urgent 
than now. You are not going to found and forge the fabric of a grand 
alliance to resist aggression, except by showing continued examples of 

12 



your firmness in carrying out, even under difficulties, and in the teeth 
of difficulties, the obligations into which you have entered. I warn the 
Conservative party — and some of my warnings have not, alas, been ill- 
founded — that by committing themselves to this lamentable act of default, 
they will cast our country and all that it stands for, one more step down- 
ward in its fortunes, which step will later on have to be retrieved, as it 
will be retrieved, by additional hard exertions. That is why I say that 
upon the large aspect of this matter the policy which you think is a 
relief and an easement you will find afterwards you will have to retrieve, 
in suffering and greater exertions than those we are making. 

I end upon the land of Palestine. It is strange indeed that we should 
turn away from our task in Palestine at the moment when, as the Secretary 
of State told us yesterday, the local disorders have been largely mastered. 
It is stranger still that we should turn away when the great experiment 
and bright dream, the historic dream, has proved its power to succeed. 
Yesterday the Minister responsible descanted eloquently in glowing pas- 
sages upon the magnificent work which the Jewish colonists have done. 
They have made the desert bloom. They have started a score of thriving 
industries, he said. They have founded a great city on the barren shore. 
They have harnessed the Jordan and spread its electricity throughout the 
land. So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the 
country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even 
all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population. Now we are asked 
to decree that all this is to stop and all this is to come to an end. We are 
now asked to submit — and this is what rankles most with me — to an 
agitation which is fed with foreign money and ceaselessly inflamed by 
Nazi and by Fascist propaganda. 

It is twenty years ago since my right honourable Friend 1 used these 
stirring words: 

"A great responsibility will rest upon the Zionists, who, before 
long, will be proceeding, with joy in their hearts, to the ancient seat 
of their people. Theirs will be the task to build up a new prosperity 
and a new civilization in old Palestine, so long neglected and mis-ruled." 

Well, they have answered his call. They have fulfilled his hopes. 
How can he find it in his heart to strike them this mortal blow? 



Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. 



13 



THE MANDATE FOR PALESTINE* 

Adopted by the Council of the League of Nations, July 24, 1922 

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed for the purpose of 
giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of 
Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administra- 
tion of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish 
Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and 

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Man- 
datory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally 
made on the 2nd November, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic 
Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in 
Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood 
that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious 
rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and 
political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and 

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connec- 
tion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting 
their national home in that country; and 

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected his Britannic 
Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and 

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in 
the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; 
and 

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the Mandate in respect 
of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations 
in conformity with the following provisions; and 

Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is pro- 
vided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by 
the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the members of 
the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations; 
Conforming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows; 

Article 1 
The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, 
save as they may be limited by the terms of this Mandate. 

Article 3 

The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such 
political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establish- 
ment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the de- 

* The preamble and the most significant portions of the Mandate are here reproduced. 

14 



velopment of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and 
religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and 
religion. 

Article 3 

The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local 
autonomy. 

Article 4 

An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the 
purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in 
such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the 
Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, 
and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part 
in the development of the country. 

The Zionist organization, so long as its organizations and constitution are 
in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognized as such agency. 
It shall take steps in consultation with his Britannic Majesty's Government to 
secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment 
of the Jewish national home. 

Article 6 

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position 
of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish 
immigration under the suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation 
with the Jewish Agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on 
the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. 

Article 15 
The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free 
exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public 
order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be 
made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or 
language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole grounds of 
his religious belief. 

Article 24 
The Mandatory shall make to the Council of the League of Nations an 
annual report to the satisfaction of the Council as to the measures taken during 
the year to carry out the provisions of the Mandate. Copies of all laws and 
regulations promulgated or issued during the year shall be communicated with 
the report.* 



* When the White Paper was submitted to the Permanent Mandates Commission of the 
League, the majority of the Commission's members expressed themselves as feeling unable 
"to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the mandate, 
any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the 
mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors." 

15 







The American Zionist Emergency Council 

342 Madison Avenue New York 17. N. Y.